HC Deb 23 June 1865 vol 180 cc732-8
MR. LAIRD

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of Mr. Galloway and Mr. Grey to the Board of Trade on the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, which was laid upon the table of the House 8th of March last. He himself had introduced a Bill in 1863 for testing chain cables and anchors He had originally taken up the question because his own experience had led him to the conclusion that it was expedient that all the anchors purchased from private firms should be tested by means of a public testing machine. That the testing machines throughout the country generally were inefficient, was clearly proved by the report of the officers whose names he had mentioned, and the only security, as far as he could judge from the inquiries which he had made, against the continuance of a similar state of things was that the cables and anchors used by our ships should be tested by a public machine. Indeed, he believed he might state that the committee at Lloyd's, and others interested in the matter, had remonstrated in every way they could with the Board of Trade against licensing the machines of private individuals. Brown, Lennox, and Co., to whom such a licence had been granted, were, no doubt, a most respectable firm, but then if a licence were given to them there was no reason why it should not be granted to every respectable firm throughout the country, and it was, he was informed, the practice of the Government to have the cables supplied to them, although they might be tested previously by the maker, retested by a special officer of their own before they were used. The Act was not imperative, but left an option to the Board of Trade to appoint testers and to refuse licences to private firms. Mr. Galloway and Mr. Grey were appointed by the Board of Trade to go round to the various manufactories, and they made a report on the subject last year, from which he would read some passages. They stated— As regards the Act itself we find that it is, with one or two exceptions, looked on and received as a boon. It was represented to us that it will he the means of raising the cable trade from what is described as the present lamentable condition, and that it will he of immense value to the honest maker in the foreign trade. We have been shown specimens of bad iron, almost resembling plateglass in brittleness, that has been used in making chains to meet the market, and we have been shown good iron that may be used, and if used that will make a chain guaranteed to stand 15 per cent beyond the Admiralty proof. We were told repeatedly that the honest maker now sees his way to making a really good chain at a profit, without fear of being undersold by a bad article made by a small maker. The great majority of chain-makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cable for the purpose of giving a certificate of public proof. And many makers who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine. Many chain cable makers expressed a hope that the committee of Lloyd's Register will refuse to class a ship unless her cable and anchors are proved at a machine other than the one belonging to the establishment at which they are made. They stated that such a rule had been made, but they feared it had been departed from in favour of one or two makers. We stated that this appeared to us to be a point with which the Board of Trade cannot properly interfere, but we were nevertheless particularly requested to mention the subject in our report. He (Mr. Laird) was sorry to hear that the Board of Trade had licensed Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co. If a licence was granted to them it must be granted to other parties, and instead of the Act being a great security, it might be worked in such a way as to be very injurious. If the operation of the Bill was not postponed for three or six months, its tendency would be to throw a monopoly into the hands of a few makers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the principle of the Act, and not go on licensing private individuals. As it was there was not sufficient public machinery to do the work of testing, and if the operation of the Act were not postponed for a few months, the result would be that a monopoly would be given to those firms which were in the neighbourhood of public machines. Under these circumstances he hoped the President of the Board would take care that the principle of the Act, which involved the application of a public test, would be adhered to.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he thought that as the Act was to come into operation on the 1st of July it would be advisable to wait to see how it worked before introducing into it any Amendments. The Board of Trade were doing all that lay in their power to abide by the provisions of the law, and did not license chain makers, but the testing machine itself, which it was authorised to do. It was the duty of the Board to satisfy themselves by inspection that the machinery used for testing chain cables was efficient in order that the cables tested by the machine might receive the proof stamp. They had certainly licensed the firm of Brown, Lennox, and Co., who had a testing machine which was their own property, and if they had not done so there would be no testing machine in London, although the Act would so soon come into force. Their machine had been found to be most effective, and Messrs. Lloyd had engaged to make such alterations as was requisite to provide an effective machinery also. His hon. Friend, he might add, was mistaken if he supposed that he could attain the object which he seemed to hare in view, by laying it down as a rule that no testing machine should be licensed which was the property of a chainmaker. The fact was, that chainmakers were members of joint-stock associations, and might do in that capacity precisely the same thing as the hon. Gentleman was opposed to their doing as individuals. In proof of the accuracy of what he had stated, he might refer to Lloyd's, who were of opinion that testing machines should be under the control and superintendence of some responsible public body, and they would only pass such chains as were tested by such bodies; and amongst these bodies were Messrs. Lloyd, of Poplar; the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board Testing Company, Lloyd's Public Chain and Anchor Proving House, and the Sunderland Public Chain and Anchor Testing House. These machines were all the property of chainmakers, who possessed most admirable machinery. If a man bought a chain from Messrs. Brown and Co. he might say, "I don't approve of testing it by your machine," and he might take it to Lloyd's. In fact, the purchaser had his security in his own hands. The question was whether they had not gone far enough in licensing testing machines. It would be only throwing dust in the eyes of the public if he were to pretend that by laying down some general rule as to the persons to whom licence should be given perfect testing machines could be secured. That could be done only by means of some independent corporation or the Government taking the testing machines under their own charge. But corporations would not, perhaps, be willing to sot up those machines. The trade should be allowed, therefore, to go on, and licences should be given to such machines as were found to be good and sufficient, and the purchaser left to go elsewhere if he pleased. An application had been made to the Board of Trade to postpone the operation of this Act, and he, thinking that the application had emanated from the great body of persons interested in the question, was favourably disposed to postponement. But he found, upon inquiry, that the great body of the trade in Staffordshire and other places did not desire any postponement whatever. The Board of Trade, therefore, had come to the conclusion to license before the 1st of July a sufficient number of testing machines. There would be one in London, two in Birkenhead, three in Staffordshire, one in Sunderland, and others in other places. He was informed by persons competent to speak upon the subject, that there was no necessity whatever for any postponement of the operation of the Act. The Board of Trade notices were published in December last, every one was prepared for the Act coming into operation on the 1st of July; if any one had neglected to provide proper testing machines the fault was his own, nor would it be fair to those who had taken the trouble and gone to the expense of providing machines, to postpone the operation of the Act, in order to suit the views of some manufacturers who had not acted with equal promptitude. A letter had been addressed to him, signed by the great majority of the principal chainmakers in Staffordshire, in which he was informed that there was not the slightest necessity for deferring the operation of the Act, inasmuch as the testing machines there and in Liverpool were very short of work, and were quite equal to the duties required of them. They further stated they had refused to concur in the application lately drawn up and presented to the Board of Trade, by one manufacturer who sought a postponement for his own private convenience, and not with a view to the public benefit. They had expended upwards of £10,000 on the machines, and they would suffer considerable loss if the operation of the Act were postponed. Under these circumstances, having consulted the Board of Trade Inspectors, and being assured that no general inconvenience to the trade would be caused by allowing the Act to come into operation on the 1st of July, he had changed the intention which he had at first formed.

MR. HUMBERSTON

said, he had the honour of attending a deputation to the Board of Trade with the view of obtaining a postponement of the time at which the Act was fixed to come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was good enough to assent to the request that a Bill should be introduced in order to postpone the commencement of the existing Act to the first of January. That deputation represented the views of gentlemen in the trade at Chester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Staffordshire, and Newcastle, and those who were present were satisfied that the postponement would take place in accordance with what was stated at the time. They felt aggrieved, therefore, that an alteration in the intention of the right hon. Gentleman should have taken place without having had an opportunity of making a reply; but the real question after all was, whether private machines were to be licensed or not. The feeling of the trade was, that it would insure more satisfactory work, if no testing machines were licensed except public machines or machines at which a man could not test his own work. That seemed a fair recommendation coming from the trade. The members of the Goldsmiths' Company did not test their own work; there was a public assay master to whom they sent their goods to be tested, and the test was accepted all over the world. The chainmakers, for whom he spoke, wished the same principle to be adopted, and he thought it a small request to ask for a postponement for six months. The public would be better satisfied if only public machines were licensed, and to enable a sufficient number to be constructed a postponement to the 1st of January was required. He hoped if the right hon. Gentleman would not introduce a Bill for that purpose, he would avail himself of the discretion which he undoubtedly possessed of not licensing private machines.

MR. O'REILLY

said, the original proposal was for a public testing machine. The clause for granting licences to private testing machines had been subsequently introduced. If he was correct in that statement, it should be taken in connection with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that security such as was sought for could only be obtained by a public test. A private test was useless. But that was the very question, whether private persons should stamp the Hall-mark on their goods or not. What was wanted was that the stamp should be really what it professed to be, a warrant to the public that the machines did really test. The inspectors of the Board of Trade stated that a great many of the machines which they had tested could be relied on. He would suggest that if the property of private persons were to be licensed there should be such a system of public inspection as should show not only that the machine was once good, but that it continued to be good.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Bill of last Session appeared not to be sufficient for the purpose for which it was required, but he thought it would be a very strange proceeding to call upon the Government to suspend its operation. Next to the machines being good it was essential that the test should be a fair and honest one. In the discussion of 1863 the impression was that the test should be carried on in the presence of public officers, and if that were done it would not much matter to whom the machine belonged, provided it was a good one. A private individual might use it, and probably would use it honestly with regard to his own work; but he doubted if the public could be induced to believe in it unless a public inspector certified to the completeness of the test. He thought the present law wanted amendment in that particular.